Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35923239›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2022

Impact of Automated Genotyping and Increased Breeding Oversight on Overall Mouse Breeding Colony Productivity.

Kelly R VanDenBerg, Katherine Oravecz-Wilson, Lauren Krolikowski, Valerie Hill, Pavan Reddy, Zachary T Freeman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kelly R VanDenBergOffice of Research, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Katherine Oravecz-WilsonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Lauren KrolikowskiUnit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Valerie HillUnit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Pavan ReddyDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of MI, Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Zachary T FreemanUnit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, Refinement and Enrichment Advancements Laboratory, Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mice have become increasingly popular as genetic tools, facilitated by the production of advanced genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs). GEMMs often require in-house breeding and production by research groups, which can be quite complex depending on the design of the GEMM. Identification of methods to increase the efficiency of breeding practices offers opportunities to optimize and reduce the number of animals bred for research while maintaining similar research output. We investigated the use of commercial automated genotyping and centralized breeding management on overall breeding colony productivity in a colony of multiple GEMM lines. This study involved a three-group study design, where the first group continued their standard breeding practices (group A), the second utilized standard breeding practices but outsourced genotyping in place of inhouse genotyping (group B), and a third group outsourced genotyping and had assistance with routine breeding practices from the laboratory animal care team (group C). Compared to standard practice (group A), groups B and C produced more cages and mice over time, which appeared to be driven primarily by an increase in the number of breeding cages in each colony. Higher numbers of breeders correlated with an increased number of litters and generation of new cages. The increases in colony productivity measures were further enhanced in group C compared to group B. The overall cost associated with producing new animals was lowest in group B, followed by groups A and C. Although, by the end of the study, cost to produce new mice was comparable between all three groups. These data suggest that by optimizing breeding practices and management, fewer animals could be utilized to produce the same amount of progeny and reduce overall animal usage and production.

Indexed as

3Rs (replacebreedinggenetically engineered (GE) animalsgenotypingmouse modelreducerefine)

Identifiers

PMID35923239
PMCPMC9340497

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.